Sunday, July 26, 2009

The design of the world by the "gods" was complex and intricately worked; many details dovetail together to provide answers to ancient puzzles like the Great Sphinx at Giza, Egypt. My new article on NewsBlaze.com tells the story behind the Great Sphinx:

And, if you haven't read them, you should read my earlier posts, particularly the "Challenge To Science" posts of April 2009 and May 2009. In fact, it's best to start at the beginning, with March 2009. There are only 16 total posts, so far.----------------

Friday, July 17, 2009

The truth about Atlantis is one of those mysteries that lay bare a piece of the actual physical process by which the Earth was re-formed and the great design of the "gods" enabled, rather than delineating the design itself. While it is not on the main line of my research into the design, the fact is I was able to find enough hard evidence to identify Atlantis to my satisfaction, and therefore to be worth communicating to the world, which flounders in many speculative (as opposed to hard factual) theories about its location. Here are two more articles on Atlantis I have written, on NewsBlaze.com, with the clearest evidence (but not all, by any means) for what became of it:

Saturday, July 4, 2009

The sense that there is a great mystery to life on Earth -- beyond the existential questions of "Who, and what, am I?" -- is a continuing attraction to every generation. The "ancient mysteries" are like a primordial Black Hole, or unplumbable singularity at the beginning of history, which swallows the hypotheses and explanations of modern writers in the thick, swirling dust of millennia and the soul-deadening tyrannies of past empires.

As a romantic idea, Atlantis is first and foremost like a bright, twinkling star, a light at the end of that long, long tunnel into the past. There -- the stories that continue to spring from its legend all assure us -- is a kind of eternal life, glimpsed like a miniature diorama etched on the head of a pin, put under a microscope, and seen through a lens: Far, far away in time and space, yet as close as our imagination and will to recreate.

Where was Atlantis, really? Or was it only in the minds of ancient Egyptian priests, naive travellers from classical Greece to the Alexandrian shore, and gossipful early philosophers pandering to the appetites of their audiences?

I will tell you where was Atlantis, for it was and is real; it had a strong part in the larger history of man, and the origin of the Earth as we know it today.

There is an actual image of Atlantis still extant in the world. It was stolen out of Egypt by Roman invaders, the story was told by one Athanasius Kircher, the author of the 17th century book "Mundus Subterraneus" and a highly respected intellect of his time. Here is the picture he presented, of Insula Atlantis, the "island of Atlantis":

Now this is an upside-down image -- with north toward the bottom and south toward the top -- showing Insula Atlantis between the landmasses of Africa and Hispania (the Iberian peninsula) on the left, and America on the right. It is midway between these landmasses, in the very center of the "Oceanus Atlanticus", or Atlantic Ocean. Note that the two lesser islands between Atlantis and America are not named on the map.

We are used to looking at the globe with north at the top, so let's turn the image "right-side up":

Now we can readily see the Iberian peninsula -- Spain and Portugal -- above Africa, on the eastern side, and a rather featureless bulge supposedly representing America on the west. Atlantis is certainly not featureless, but has a distinctive shape that holds out the hope that this was once a real land in the Atlantic whose contours were well known. But so far, we can only positively recognize Iberia, and the bulge of Africa to its south, not least because the Strait of Gibraltar that separates the two can be seen in its proper location.

Atlantis was said by Plato to have sunk beneath the surface of the ocean, in just one day and night of earthquake and flood; it made the Atlantic an impassable muddy shoal, he reported as if it were a fact in his own time (in the 4th century BC). However, evidence found in America of colonies established there by Egypt and other Mediterranean lands, several centuries earlier (as early as the 9th century BC) -- as reported in the book "America BC" (1975) by anthropologist Barry Fell -- tells us the explorers of these lands were well able to cross the Atlantic nearly 3,000 years ago, just as we can today.

Is there any hope of finding a sunken landmass in the Atlantic, with the recognizable shape and size of "Insula Atlantis" on the Kircher map? The answer is no; the floor of the Atlantic has been thoroughly mapped, and this shape does not show up on those maps, dominated by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or mid-ocean rift.

But Atlantis is not lost forever, after all. There is a land with just the right shape and size to have been the fabled Lost Isle.

In discovering and subsequently verifying the Great Design of the "gods", which had involved a wholesale re-formation of the landmasses on the surface of the Earth between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, I became familiar with the many details of those landmasses, and when I afterwards came across Kircher's map of the Atlantic, with Atlantis in the middle of the ocean, I recognized its shape as one familiar to me.

I had, after all, not so long before, picked out the shapes of the continents and other landmasses -- one point at a time, thousands of points altogether-- to develop my own Earth- and sky-mapping software, with which I studied the Great Design and its message stored for mankind, or for whoever might come to Earth to study mankind, and who might find and read it.

One of the last large landmasses whose detailed ocean outline I plotted, was Greenland, and the similarity between Greenland and Insula Atlantis is substantial (see the accompanying illustration). To properly compare Greenland with Insula Atlantis, I only had to determine the actual size of Atlantis as seen on the Kircher map. This was easily done by comparing "Hispania" on the Kircher map with the Iberian peninsula on the actual globe; it is then a simple matter to scale Insula Atlantis to its appropriate size on the globe. When this is done, the comparison with Greenland is excellent, in both size and detailed shape.

I won't here go into the many strands of evidence I found which positively established Greenland as the Atlantis of ancient legend. I am satisfied here mainly with showing the close comparison of the two, with just a few added points to be made. First, the Insula Atlantis of Kircher's map is wider than Greenland. This is because the eastern portion of Atlantis was broken off, and became Iceland -- to the southeast of Greenland today -- and the islands of the United Kingdom, even further south and east.

And, as the accompanying illustration shows clearly, the lesser islands depicted between America and Atlantis on the Kircher map can be readily identified with the Florida peninsula -- before it was attached to America -- and the island of Hispaniola (the Dominican Republic and Haiti). The shoreline of America depicted on the Kircher map is not that of North America today, but from a time before the land east of the Appalachians was fixed onto the continent. Since Atlantis only "disappeared" -- that is, it was moved north to the present position of Greenland, by the designers -- around 9600 BC, this tells us North America was given its present shape, with Florida attached, only after that late date.

So the "gods" who re-formed the Earth's landmasses did so at least as late as 9600 BC -- actually, for more than a thousand years after that, as Egypt recorded its institution "by the goddess" as having occurred at about 8600 BC. Evidence for all of this is to be found in my book, "The End of the Mystery." The larger scientific community and its followers, in choosing to ignore and dismiss observable design in the world, remain stuck just this side of the discovery of the Great Design of the "gods" -- once, and now again, the single great wonder of the world.-------------------------

If you want to see this new knowledge recognized, and verified by other scientists, tell your teachers, your scientist friends, your local and national radio and TV stations. And read the earlier posts on this blog, especially the April 2009 "Challenge to Science" posts.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

The following article is also on NewsBlaze.com here, with accompanying images of the dodecahedron pattern of lines followed by the landmasses on the Earth. Those images are also in the April 2009 post "Challenge to Earth Scientists" in this blog.---------------------------

Hannah Montana Naked, Milankovitch Score on the Web

First, the back-story: I tried my hand at answering a question on answers.yahoo.com a few days ago--a question on planetary orbits that both the asker and the responders seemed to be having trouble focusing upon. Anyone who has ever taught physics knows you get a lot of, shall we say "soft" thinking from non-science majors who take an introductory physics course. That's because physics demands convincing evidence--not glib speculation--and strict rules of logic, not to mention mathematics. Some of those posting on that site were engaging in a fair amount of soft thinking, clearly without realizing it.

The question was, "if the force between the Earth and Sun is constant, why isn't the Earth's orbit a circle instead of an ellipse?" I won't go into the answer; my answer was given 2 thumbs down by viewers, mostly I think because I am a physicist, the question was an elementary one, and these kids--they seemed like kids to me--have evidently been spoon-fed a lot of smooth talk and bad ideas in their science classes.

Chief among these ideas was that planetary orbits change over time according to what is known as Milankovitch theory. Now, I am a physicist, and I don't subscribe to that theory (for reasons to be revealed below); earth scientists, however, do subscribe, and defend it strongly, because they think it "explains" the "ice ages" that are part of the modern scientific canon of holy theories, not to be denied lest you be called a religious idiot, i.e., a creationist rather than a rational person who, by the way, "knows" evolution is a fact.

You can see where this is going--earth and life scientists think their theories are strong enough to be called facts, and they're quite wrong, despite many incompetent physicists who also hotly defend them.

I am not being nice here, because modern scientists, with their holy canon, have not been nice, nor open to legitimate self-correction, for generations, nor have they been competent, particularly recently, in their dogmatic, biased attacks upon critics. Ben Stein even made a movie last year about this well known scientific tyranny, called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." To be blunt, evolutionists (in the earth sciences just as much as the life sciences) are the bristly ayatollahs of science, misusing their religiously-taught, religiously-held beliefs.

"Evolution", I might as well tell you here and now, is in fact a robust metaphysical principle, applicable across the full range of human learning, but "undirected evolution", as espoused by modern scientists, is a contradiction in terms, and positively denied by a world of evidence. Milankovitch is one of the subsidiary religious beliefs of most earth scientists, just as epicycles were subsidiary to the planetary circles envisaged by medieval scholars who, inspired for centuries by the empty rhetoric of the universally admired Aristotle, played games with an earth-centered solar system.

Let me cut right through all the intellectual mud that "defenders of science" will want to throw at me. I am a physicist by education and experience, and no doubt of an older, and I think finer, school. I have proved that the surface of the Earth was deliberately re-formed, largely between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago--which just happens to be the time frame of the last supposed "ice age"-- to enable a great design that was the original, objective motivation for all the exoteric ancient mysteries (as opposed to the esoteric, or spiritual truths, also claimed by wise men and women since "the beginning"); I have found enough answers from the design, to a broad range of such ancient puzzles, to state this as a fact.

But, even more amazing, in the context of what modern science thinks it knows but does not, the Earth shows clear evidence of design that should long ago have checked the wayward advance of the earth and life sciences, into the present huge edifice of speculations piled upon assumptions, and arbitrarily legislated by "authorities" to be facts.

I have previously written about the "Clockwork Moon Science Ignores", for example. I have pointed out in another recent article the clear image of a man's face in the outline and inland features of Africa. I could further point out, and suggest the reader check for him/herself, that there are similar images (often incomplete or tantalizingly vague, but many striking in their recognizability) in the outlines of North America, the St. Lawrence Seaway, South America, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Sweden, Italy, South Asia (from Turkey to Indo-China), Australia, Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea, New Zealand, India, Greenland, Antarctica, Arabia, Hudson Bay, and more.

I could point out--and I have many times, in the past 6 years of trying to gain recognition for my discoveries--that almost all of these earth images are uniformly upright on the globe, and so could not have been created by chance continental drift, or any undirected process. I say that as a physicist, confident of my estimations of the probabilities involved, which simply rule out chance formation of the landmasses. The fact that these images are also the original "sacred images" of mankind, worldwide--precisely described in the world's most famous myths--is merely icing on the cake, solidly confirming the basic, readily observable physical facts.

But science is so incompetent right now that no one, apparently, can even do such quantitative calculations, because scientists and their defenders simply don't believe design can be considered in the origin or history of the physical world. This is nothing short of juvenile delinquency on their part, and a gross, worldwide dereliction of scientific duty.

I have put a "Challenge to Earth Scientists" post on my blog, with a clear scientific and visual argument that positively proves design in the layout of the landmasses on Earth. Of course, this simple demonstration immediately invalidates undirected plate tectonics, the central theory of all the earth sciences, as well as the uniformitarian assumption underlying, and critical to, undirected evolution theory, at the center of all the life sciences. I present the pertinent images here, and simply state, and dare any scientist to disprove the statement, that the landmasses of the Earth were deliberately "parked" along their eastern coasts, to follow a strict dodecahedron pattern of lines laid out on the Earth--a pattern specifically and precisely indicated in the "Great Mapping" I found (as I call it).

The odds against chance placement of these landmasses according to that strict dodecahedron pattern, are on the order of a million million to one--that's how precisely, how uniformly, those coasts are separated one from another, and how certain is their deliberate design.

This is simply undeniable by any competent physical scientist: This pattern in the landmasses of the Earth, all by itself, shows that plate tectonics is a huge affectation, a modern myth, ascribed to by science as a matter of religious faith, just as the earth-centered universe once was. There are many scientific critics of plate tectonics (I refer to several in my blog post, "The True Origin of Continental Drift"), but none have been able to garner wide support, and neither they nor the theory's defenders have shown themselves capable of wresting their attention from the minutiae of their specializations, and lifetimes of study, to make the simple observations above, which the Great Design allowed me to make as a mere by-product of that discovery, literally unprecedented in all of known history.

Just that one by-the-way demonstration of the validity of the Great Mapping as an intentional world design, and the central theories of all the earth and life sciences are humbled. Until now, only the creationists have dared to judge these theories so harshly, and been reviled for even their best, most expert judgment. And they have not seen the Great Design, either.

The powers that be always leave the great discoveries for one person to find, before all others. I think it is meant, not to set that person up as a unique genius, but to tell man, in no uncertain terms, that the mind of every single person is of paramount importance in the world, and should be developed and used with great care.

I am not a "creationist", nor an "Intelligent Design" follower. I am an independent research physical scientist, who did my own dispassionate, unprejudiced research, and made world-altering discoveries of the intellectual origin of man on Earth, and I am here to tell the world that such seemingly small things as those soft-headed responders to that question about planetary orbits on yahoo.com, are fundamentally objectionable--blindly assuming Milankovitch theory is true, when it certainly is not; nor were undirected "ice ages" responsible for the carving of the Earth's surface as we see it today.

Nor did "God" do it, at the true beginning of all things. The ancient testimonies of man, worldwide, swore "by all that is holy" that the "gods" came down, and interbreeded with man, and taught him all he knew, and remade the world, and indeed the entire solar system--in the "birth of the new gods", the planets of today, as Greek myth remembered it.

I am an unknown in science, and I try to honestly call myself a competent, honest physical scientist, but until science confronts, and honestly accepts, the Great Design, I tell you it is incompetent working at the frontiers of human knowledge, and its theories will ever be subject to fierce debate--because they are wrong, and worse, wrong-headed.

Never mind calling me egotistical, fellow scientists (as both evolutionists and creationists have done); it is the specific design of the "gods" that tests you, and finds you lacking, when you are told of it and yet deny it, and refuse even to look at it. So many should not be so incompetent, on so clear a point as this; so the test is also obviously (to me) spiritual in nature, and worldwide, and has emerged just now because a fundamental, undeniable truth is nevertheless being denied by modern man: Design of the world.

And finally, as promised in the title: Hannah Montana Naked. She's a beaut, isn't she?